Quote:
Originally Posted by weeeez
There is a massive hypocrisy from all parts here and everywhere I read,about chemicals weapons.
Its perfectly fine to gear up thoushands of nukes,use them in ww2 (according to some previous post 40 years after chemical weapons being frowned upon).
Its perfectly fine that everyone own a gun and its soooo evident that some kills are cleaner than other.
Seriously.
this is unreal bs and hypocrisy.
Its the same logic that people go when they want to save dolphins and baby seals,and kill sharks and mosquitoes.
This is really tilting reading all the people screaming CHEMICALS,when the rest of the year they say nothing about equally bad weapons.
ps:if I wasnt clear Im against all weapons,there is no such thing as clean war and kill.
Yeah lets start mass producing chemical weapons and atomic bombs and lets allow them to be traded & sold.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Neither do I tbh, I'm not a weapons expert. But the thought that someone who is clearly not an expert on the matter (if you are you you are really bad at expressing that in your post) would just think it's ok to spout things like "lol what's the big deal napalm their asses" with authority is ridiculously scary considering that pretty much every expert in the field condemns the use of them.
As a complete noob on the matter, there are a few obvious differences between assaulting a village with firearms and dropping chemical weapons on them:
1) With firearms you can try and limit innocent victims. Chemical weapons everyone dies.
2) With firearms innocent people have a chance to surrender or flee. Chemical weapons everyone dies.
3) With firearms violence can easily stop at any moment. Chemical weapons have to run their course and cannot be stopped.
4) A clean kill with firearms limits unnecessary suffering. There is no clean kill without suffering with chemical weapons.